Thiel Owners

jafant - thanks so much for your kind comments (and thanks so much for your great contributions to this thread).  I noticed I had a few other comments on my system page (which I added not that long ago - and just includes the main system, I have other systems including speakers from Selah Audio, B&W, Ohm and GR Research and electronics in those secondary systems from Hegel, Mivera, NuPrime, etc.) and I have added a pic that shows a bit more of the room where the main system resides. I've also added some comments about what electronics are in the main system.  Don't post often as some threads are filled with comments not conducive to providing helpful information derived from actual experience (I do find some of it almost humorous and can't even imagine anyone even put any credence in someone who has no actual first hand exposure to something - this is a great thread where we have some wonderful expertise from various individuals - thank you all).

Andy - I'm interested in learning of your work and look forward to reading more on your thread.

As an observation of your opening statement, I read what seems like a false-start. I have followed John Atkinson's reviews, observations and attitudes with great interest since meeting him in the 1980s. Your semi-quote: "Since if a speaker can produce a step response correctly, therefore it is time-phase coherent, and therefore it must be "good" - is not something I hear him saying. He does say that "all else being equal, phase coherent speakers tend to produce exceptional imaging". (My semi-quote). I state and know that Jim would agree and think that John would agree that phase coherence (however measured) does not produce a "good speaker". I think that phase coherence (as an objective or success) increases the difficulty of making a good speaker by a large multiple, and that many attempts fail in many ways, including Thiel's attempts.

I look forward to your posts in your coherence thread and this one.
Tom

"Since if a speaker can produce a step response correctly, therefore it is time-phase coherent, and therefore it must be "good" - is not something I hear him saying. He does say that "all else being equal, phase coherent speakers tend to produce exceptional imaging". (My semi-quote)

Yes, I think that's what he said.  I may have mistaken "exceptional imaging" for what he felt as "good".  I think I've read the same article that you read and he did say "exceptional imaging".  It's been awhile since I've read the article (and I can't seem to find it anymore), but I also believed he said something to the extent "if everything else has been taken care off", that is if a speaker was well designed in other regards, then "time-coherence" may have an advantage of providing "exceptional image".  

Anyway, what I will write probably won't be based on my personal opinions but more based what I've seen from simulations with actual real world data.  Others will have to draw their own conclusions.  I only used John Atkinson's statement as an "introduction", but I will try to stay clear of using my own subjectivity.  

I think that phase coherence (as an objective or success) increases the difficulty of making a good speaker by a large multiple, and that many attempts fail in many ways, including Thiel's attempts.

I agree that time-coherence is not easy and that's why besides Vandersteens, I don't know of anyone else.  I have seen a few measurements from Stereophile done by John Atkinson and he did question the validity of some of the claims of being time-coherent (not Thiel though).

My document is not meant to be a vehicle for judging anyone's work, but it is meant to discuss "time coherence" in a objective way with actual simulation using real measured data (when possible), plots and graphs, and as I said, I will not include any of my subjective opinions.

And for whatever reasons, this topic is weirdly fascinating to me, and I probably won't sleep well until I put the document together :-)

I also find the topic of phase fascinating, including the auditory neurology and learning that helps us hear, as I have expounded on this thread.

There are some confusing terms. Time alignment is a great term, but was trademarked by Ed Long around 1980, which is weird. Time coincident means the same thing, and I recommend it. Time coherence merges two concepts, leading to confusion. Also, Atkinson and others have hijacked "coherence" to include the smooth phase transitions in non-coincident systems with large phase shift - as long as the phase transitions are smooth, some call it phase coherent. Thiel, Vandersteen and many physicists reserve the term "coherence" to mean that the phase response remains minimum, ie. it does not depart from flat. A good measure is "excess phase" approaching zero. When terminology is scrambled, concepts are harder to define. 

Tom, 

Thanks!

George